Paul Krugman in his column 'Who's Nader Now?' has decided to instruct his fellow travelers on the left on how to behave this election year. Krugman seems to have landed on Howard Dean as his man (I guess Dennis Kucinich, whose views seem to be even closer to Krugman's, is not electable).  Krugman uses his Friday column to decry the attacks by Democratic rivals on Dean, and contends that the Bush re—election effort is being given red meat for future ads with these attacks on the front runner.
 
Krugman's impatience with the failure of Joe Lieberman, or Dick Gephardt, or John Kerry to just get out of the way of the Dean express, is almost amusing. After all, no votes have yet been cast, and if political parties nominated the leader in fund raising or national polls at the start of January in each Presidential election cycle, the Democrats would have picked Ed Muskie and not McGovern in 1972, and Henry Jackson, and not Jimmy Carter four years later.  

Krugman's brand of elitism can't wait for the poor schmucks to vote.  So he labels Dean's opponents for the nomination as Naderites. Of course, only Dean has effectively threatened to take his marbles and go elsewhere if he is denied the nomination. Rather, Krugman believes it is time to rally behind his man, and aim fire at the GOP. After all,  Krugman says the country faces a great national crisis — not Al Qaeda mind you, but the GOP's effort to gain political dominance. 

Of course, Krugman seems immune to the argument that Dean's rapid fire mouth has already proven more harmful to his effort to win in November (when he would need to rally more than his internet cult of admirers), than any arguments of his rivals for the nomination, who have yet to gain any traction with their attacks on him.  So far, Dean has managed to insult former President Clinton, DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe, southerners, and especially southern whites, traditional religious voters, and of course his Democratic rivals (whom he has called Republicans in disguise, which is a devastating  insult on Planet Paul). 

But it is worth exploring Krugman's contention that a potential political realignment is in the offing.  President Bush would clearly be a strong favorite to defeat Howard Dean in the general election. If the election were held today, Bush would probably win decisively, carrying more than the 29 states he did last time. But ten months is a long time in politics, especially in today's volatile world. In congress, the GOP has 229 of 435 House seats, and 51 of 100 Senate seats.

The Democrats have proven that anything short of 60 votes for one party or its program in the Senate is enough to stall lots of legislation or judicial appointments. No realistic analyst believes the GOP can win enough seats to get to 60 in 2004. Even with five open Senate seats in the South now held by Democrats, a sweep by the GOP would only bring them to 56. And several of these races— particularly in Florida and Louisiana — are hardly laydowns for the Republicans. Similarly the GOP will have difficulty defending an open seat in Illinois, and might lose another in Oklahoma where popular Democratic Congressman Brad Carson has a good shot at winning the seat given up by Don Nickles. In Alaska GOP Senator Lisa Murkowski is vulnerable, due to the charge of nepotism following her appointment by her father to his former seat. Larry Sabato, a solid political analyst, predicts the GOP may get to 54 or 55 if they are fortunate. In the House, the GOP might extend its advantage if the Texas redistricting plan holds up. The GOP might get to 235 or perhaps 240 seats.

Does this spell the death of the Democrats? One need only look back to 1964, when the Lyndon Johnson sweep brought the Democrats greater than 2 to 1 control of the House, over 60 Senate seats and a 23% national margin in the Presidential race. Within 8 years, the tables were turned, and the Democrats won only one state in the Presidential election in 1972. So Krugman's fear of long term political dominance by the GOP seems a bit ridiculous at this stage in any realignment that may be underway

Nonetheless, there are positive signs for the GOP.

Where once there were 10—15% more self—identified Democrats than Republicans, now the two parties tie on this measure, and independents, are about equal in number to each party's members. For the first time in many decades, the GOP now has more state legislative seats then the Democrats and controls more state houses. This is an advantage for the every ten year Congressional redistricting process. The state legislatures provide a way for promising young people to make their start in politics, and the GOP may look more like the party of the future, attracting more young talent. .

But it is way too early and foolish for any talk of a permanent realignment. There have been no permanent realignments in American politics. Throughout our history, Americans seem to be uncomfortable with a single party exercising too much control, without effective checks and balances from the other party. And it certainly takes more than one election to suggest even a temporary realignment has occurred. .

Krugman's message is really one of short term fear. His hatred for George Bush is so strong, that a second Bush term becomes the drum roll of catastrophe for the nation. The blinders through which he views the world make him unable to understand why relatively few share his passions (though they heavily populate the rarified circles in which he travels), and to comprehend why some more centrist Democratic contenders think the better way to combat any big Republican win in 2004 is to put up a candidate who can appeal to more than the Democrats' Krugmanite wing. 

Posted by Richard    01 03 04